Oops, wrong button, never the less:
Furthermore, scientists are often pushed either by peer pressure or by financial goals to find 'proof' for things even when they themselves don't entirely agree.
This is why peer review catches these and keeps such bad science from being considered. If a finding isn't repeatable it lacks credibility in the scientific community.
will be arguing for something different from either creationism or evolution?
Most likely, but since all of the vast amount of evidence we have points toward evolution, then I would put my money on evolution winning out in the public eye.
That's what the Jewish people did when they created their own creation stories.
WHAT??! Please establish this! You've just stated that ancient hebrews conducted studies into yahweh or something, with similar intellectual rigor to todays scientists, and that is teetering on the absurd.
But it went too far. This neo-gnostic search of 'knowledge' ended up bringing ideas that we really could figure _everything_ out.
I'm not sure what you're annoyed at here, inquiry into areas that used to be the sole province of religions, as in metaphysics, ethics, etc?
Fundamentalism is a victim of the modern worldview. Somehow, the debates always seem to end up with whether or not we can 'prove' creationism, god, the resurrection. The issue I have is not really with whatever way the evidence may slant, whether or not creationism or evolution or theory X seems to be more accurate. The disagreement seems to be over what has more meaning: the knowledge of men (epistemology of sin) or the knowledge of God (epistemology of love). Both are knowledge, both are real, and we can (and do) study both. The disagreement isn't over whether or not evolution may be literally true, maybe it is.
Incorrect, fundamentalism IS a modern worldview(modern as in younger than 500 years old). It's a reaction to more liberal humanist ethics and by extention all liberal issues, including sound science that is contrary to literal interpretation of their scripture.
Now, again you call these concepts you have epistemology of sin and love, knowledge of man and god, you are still not being in ANY WAY CLEAR. Are you saying that the knowledge that humans gain by studying the world is sinful? That 'knowledge' gained by studying scripture is worthy as real knowledge?
And you also call them both "real," do you mean that two contradictory ideas can be considered correct at once?
The satanic element is found in how evolution is usually cast and interpretted. You may not personally believe that evolution teaches that life is meaningless, that we are Godless, etc. etc.
As I said before, you are taking 'satanic' anti-god whatever world view and imposing it onto evolution. Evolution does not have an ethical meaning, none, it does not say that we are godless and meaningless, it doesn't say that we are meaningful and god's children. It is theologically neutral. The issue is more how it contrasts with biblical literalism, and this is why the christian right attacks evolution.
that such worldview assumptions can (and have) caused people to turn into little Hitlers, Stalins and Husseins.
BULL
For one thing, Hitler and Saddam were religious nutballs, and Stalin was a Lamarckist idiot, and they were all motivated by racism, not evolution.
But that doesn't matter in this case either way, because their tyranny was not prompted by a view of natural selection as a biological process. They, just like you, are imposing a presupposed ethical format onto a scientific theory.
it is our responsibility to interpret evolution much the way that so called 'theistic evolutionists' have. I'm not a theistic evolution because I still see holes in the evolutionist theory.
Wait, who's responsibility? And what holes?
I have to go, so I may go on, but please respond as soon as you can.
To show I'm not sexist,you may go first.